to think that schools admissions aren't fair

[picklepud]

This is different from saying that I wouldn't go through the system if my child's local school had religious criteria, but I am feeling a bit sad and up in arms for a friend today. Same old story, her local school (primary) is c of E VA. She's not, and chose not to get baptised or go to church twice monthly. So now she will have to drive to her allocated school. So incidentally will many of the people who got in on religious grounds from way away. I really really would go to church for my dd to get into my local school, so I'm not criticising those who do, but I just don't think it should be necessary. Or that religious commitment should give you priority in a state school. And particularly that the vicar should not pretend for a minute that he (as he said in a newspapaper article) say that this is a school in the heart of the community serving all the children of the community.
I know, I know, some people might genuinely change through exposure to the church but I don't think it's the way for a church to expand its membership. sorry. and sorry it's so long.

The thing is, if there were no church schools, then there would be less money in education in total (it's not as though the Government can just confiscate all the school buildings that belong to the church- we're not in Nazi Germany) and there's no guaranteeing that the children currently excluded from faith schools would be any better off in the admissions battle.

I know that in MANY areas the choice is extremely unsatisfactory, and often the faith school is the best option, but I still don't understand why non-religious parents would want to send their child to the faith school, especially as some clearly are not just passively non-religious but are quite "Anti-church"

honesty! that's my point. people are feeling pushed towards dishonesty to choose a school. Other choices, based on results, gender, selection might be unsatisfactory for a whole raft of other reasons and open up lots of other threads, but it's transparent. I suppose you might move into an area for a school and then claim the moral high ground for choosing your local school, but still, standing in a church having your child baptised, attending church for two years or more? It is wrong that the system of admissions gives people the opportunity to follow this path. And yes there are folks with genuine religious commitment, but the congregation drops after places are announced show that they aren't in the majority in some places. Independent schools, whatever your take, are trasparent about what gets you in and you can't pretend you can pay, or that your child has the ability to get a scholarship if they haven't.

"If you want to have access to this sort of education then have your children baptised, go to church and participate in the community. It really is that simple."

Yes but that is what people get worked up about, people suddenly becoming avid churchgoers, and I can understand why.

But given choices like the ones round here, people do what they must to get the best for their children. It is obvious that is how people are going to behave, whether it is unethical or not.

arcticfox when the only choice is a faith school then I don't see why people who have paid their taxes should be forced to home ed - even if they could afford to. I for one like working, that would be out of the window.

The majority of primary schools in my borough are based entirely on faith criteria, with no community admissions at all. The community schools have very small catchments. Last year many childrn ended up with no school place at all.

What would you have people do?

PS, I tried to think AIBU but then I thought about it from the PoV that if the best school in the neighbourhood was an Islamic School, would I try to get my kids in. No, I wouldn't, because whilst I respect Islam as a religion, I wouldnt want my children brought up in that religion. Equally I would respect the right of that school to say "sorry but you don't support our values. Move along."

That's why I have a hard time understanding the way some parents seem to completely despise the church and all that it stands for on the one hand, and want their children educated in that faith on the other. Seems bizarre to me.

Articfox - people want their children to go to particular schools because the education is better, simple as that and therefore believe they have an entitlement to that. Two reasons that our catholic school is so great is becuase it is stric and follows a loving catholic ethos also there are many activities available to us because the catholic church centrally and locally make funds available.

If you know the choice is unsatisfactory then join a church - i have no objection to this because it brings new people to the community and also if parents are prepared to make this sacrifice for their children then this can only be a good thing no? If you have gone to all those lengths to get your child into a school then surely you will provide excellent support to your child whilst they are at that school, and that is good for all the children in the school to have a large number aming them as well supported pupils. Schools and the results and outcomes of children thrive on keen and supportive parents.

Schools which are paid for by the govt should simply take the children on a basis of where they live.

Yes there would still be problems in oversubscribed areas but at least you wouldn't have this farce of Jewish people rocking up at the catholic church and athiests agreeing to follow the word of Jesus and so on.

lots of independant schools have entrance exams - it is not just based on ability to pay

No school only has a faith criteria - in fact at the top of mpst school entry criteria are children in care. I think our school has about 80% catholic children, there is also criteria abiout living in the area and going to an anglican church

Again people miss the point. Round here it is not a choice between good religious school/bad community school.

It is between average religious school/no school at all.

I'd change the system. And until then do what they need to do to do the best for their child. ImSoNotTelling You should know that I absolutely would have attended church if my local school place depended on it. That's what my closest friends have done and I respect their need in the current system to do it. I think that it has become a form of backdoor social selection, to which I am opposed. None of this is simple, after all catchments are a form of social selection and the proposed alternatives to that are untenable too.

Schools which are paid for by the govt should simply take the children on a basis of where they live.

If you did this then you would have school closures in rural areas - faith schools are sussidised by their churches - they have a right to choce.

tarty yes cared for sometimes come first - but they account for very few places. Anyway most of the schools have religious cared for children at the top, then the religious criteria, then then non religious cared for IYSWIM.

Most of the schools also do not have any community places and as they are all oversubscribed the criteria further down the list (eg location which is usually last) are never triggered.

If you had entry criteria based soley on where people live then this is also social engineering by the back door too isn't it? If you live in shit area with shit schools, it means you can only go to shit school becuase poverty means a lack of mobility and choice in housing - sounds a dreadful idea. Both the schools my children have been to have been out of area.

I agree that the criteria also have points two three etc. But when there are twenty four places left after siblings, SEN and children in care (all of which are imperatively valid criteria which shouldn't be messed with) there is no hope of anyone getting in on much else than the next one on the list - regular worshippers at the attached church. I'm sorry to throw the cat among the pigeons but I take issue with the idea that children with committed parents have more right to education in a "good" school than others. Particularly a Christian school. That doesn't mean I wish my daughter to be thrown to the lions, but it just clarifies that desire for entry to these schools have very little to do, often, with religious commitment and desire for children to be raised in faith. That in itself is not an issue, I would look at exam results, behaviour in the school, I'm not suggesting that anyone, on principle take whatever they're given.

The good thing about having a religious criteria is that it spand social divide. Our school has a really diverse mix of people in it - the common theme is catholicism but not exclusively. The catholic school in my area were not able to place over 20 catholic children that applied. The other catholic school nearish to me was the same and had an incredibly long waiting list - i got lucky on a mid year thing when 2 children left. I have waited ages to get my children into a catholic school depite being practising in the faith. Is that fair?

I take issue with the idea that children with committed parents have more right to education in a "good" school than others.

No but if it just happens that the good schoo is a religous school and those parents are commited and regular attenders then yes, we should have priority. There are some very good non faith schools of course. I have no wish for any child to be thrown to the lions but sometimes this is just how it is. All children deserve the same chance at excellent education, no one would despute that.

tartyhighheels of course. so perhaps people having to show a level of commitment to the school they have chosen rather than its belief system might be an option. Swap church twice a month for helping paint the school? My issue is with honesty not with people choosing the school they want. We have been able to choose what we want - the local school. And yes we have had to live near it. But if necessary I'd go and help out. All schools benefit from committed supportive parents.

We are practising Catholic BUT I do not send my kids to a Catholic school because I totally disagree with faith schools.

As a teacher and a practising Catholic parent I strongly believe that the place for faith is at Church and in the home.

I believe in the teaching of religion is schools but not faith.

But why would you want a child educated as a catholic (again using this example as i have no other experience) if you were not a catholic? Are you suggesting we scrap faith schools and go for some homogenous blob of sameness where none of us have any choice?

And this debate is not about faith schools per se, so I support your right as a practising catholic to a catholic education, THH.

I think much depends on the area and on the school's faith. Almost all the primary schools in my area are C of E. Thankfully our village school's admissions criteria give priority to children living nearby and only then to children from church-going families not within the area.

The one RC primary gives priority to RC families - there are however alternative non-RC schools well within reasonable walking distance so this seems entirely reasonable to me. I would feel the same about any other faith school.

I do think however that areas which are heavily segregated socio-economically might need to take a different approach. Quite what this is I don't know. A degree of random allocation, perhaps?

Almost all the primary schools in our area are anglican too - like i said even being practising it took ages to get my girls into a catholic school.

I also don't like the way that families at RC schools all just mix together socially. I just didn't like the idea of seeing the same families at Church and at school and my children only ever spending time with other Catholic families.

Tarty, where I live, 100% of the pupils in the two Catholic schools are baptised Catholics, and you have to enclose a reference from the local priest with your application to say that you are regular churchgoers.

The schools also have a tiny proportion of children with SENs compared to the local community schools (2.2% statemented at our nearest RC school vs 23.6% at nearest community school), fewer children with English as a second language, fewer children eligible for free school dinners and significantly smaller class sizes. By using their own admissions criteria they have sidestepped most of the issues that make educating children in our "area of very high social deprivation" particularly challenging, so it's not at all surprising that they get much better results than the community schools.

This is why, in an area like ours, faith schools that use these criteria for entry are so divisive, and why it is not at all surprising than most people who have a trace of Catholicism in their background find themselves unlapsing once they start looking at schools.

You seem to be saying that you are quite happy for people to start going to church, have their children baptised and make public declarations of belief - regardless of whether they hold these beliefs - all for the sake of giving their children a better education, which is generous of you, but for many people it constitutes an act of hypocrisy which they simply can't bring themselves to carry out. I can't think why you would use a phrase like "it really is that simple" to describe this process.